Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1100/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1100 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1101 of 2011
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1110 of 2011
=========================================================
RAJESHBHAI
HANSRAJBHAI GAJERA & 10 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 11.
Mr. Anand L. Sharma, AGP for Respondent(s)
: 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
NOTICE SERVED BY
DS for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR BS PATEL for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 27/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. Paresh Upadhyay for petitioners and learned
Advocate Mr. BS Patel for respondent no.4 as well as Mr. Anand L.
Sharma, learned AGP for respondent NO.1,2 and 3.
In
para 7A, petitioners are praying to direct respondent authorities of
Government to accord approval for revision of pay of petitioners on
the lines of recommendations made by 6th Pay Commission
as adopted by Government for all Government employees with effect
from 1.1.2006 within time period which this Court may consider just
and proper in facts and circumstances of case and also to direct
respondent authorities to revise pay of petitioners accordingly and
also pay arrears flowing from prayer clause A.
Learned
Advocate Mr. Paresh Upadhyay appearing for petitioners in this group
of petitions has submitted that respondent no.4 has received one
reply dated 19th November, 2010 from respondent NO.2 in
respect to prayers made by petitioners in present petitions. He
submitted that according to aforesaid reply page 24 Annexure J,
Chairman/Secretary, APMC, Rajkot has been informed by respondent
no.2 that the demand made by petitioners claiming benefit as per
recommendations made by 6th Pay Commission at par with
Government employees is under consideration of State Government but
so long approval is not given by State Government, such benefit
cannot be made available to petitioners by respondent no.4.Proposal
has been made by respondent NO.4 on 26.10.2010 as mentioned at
Annexure J page 24 against which aforesaid reply is given by
respondent no.2 that proposal made by respondent no.4 is pending
under consideration with State Government looking to averments made
in aforesaid reply. Therefore, in interest of justice, it is
directed to respondent no.1 to consider resolution No.21 passed by
respondent no.4 in General Board Meeting dated 13.5.2009 which is at
page 13 Annexure B and also examine detail which has been supplied
by respondent no.4 at page 16 Annexure E and page 20 Annexure H
dated 2nd November, 2010 and, thereafter, consider one
fact that at present, petitioners are getting pay scale on the basis
of recommendations made by 5th Pay Commission at par with
other Government employees and then to pass appropriate reasoned
order in accordance with policy of Government as early as possible
within period of three months from date of receiving copy of present
order and communicate decision to present petitioners as well as
respondent no.4. Respondent NO.1 is also directed to consider that
respondent No.4 is not receiving any grant from State Government for
managing its affairs. In this case, merely formal sanction or
approval is necessary because of statutory provisions made in
Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Committee Act but ultimately
financial liability is to be borne by respondent no.4 who is
prepared to extend benefit flowing from recommendation made by 6th
Pay Commission in favour of present petitioners as per resolution
page 13 annexure B while passing resolution no.21 dated 13.5.2009.
Therefore, respondent no.1 has to exercise only statutory power
granting benefit in favour of present petitioners as per resolution
made by respondent no.4 page 13 annexure B dated 13.5.2009.
However,
in case, if orders that may be passed by respondent no.1 in
pursuance to directions issued by this Court, is adverse to
petitioner as well as respondent no.4, then, it is open for both
parties to challenge same before appropriate forum in accordance
with law.
In
light of aforesaid observations and directions, these petitions are
disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
(H.K.Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top